Thursday, March 10, 2016

Area fire and medical response crews responded to the Manhattan Regional Airport shortly before five p.m. Thursday after an emergency alert went out regarding a potential incident at the airport.Airport Director Jesse Romo indicates an American Airlines flight was inbound for landing and had a warning light come on for a possible hydraulic failure. Several fire engines and medical response vehicles arrived prior to the landing to assist.The aircraft arrived and landed safely at the Manhattan Regional Airport at approximately 5:15 PM. For precautionary reasons, the aircraft was towed to the parking apron near the terminal where passengers safely deplaned.

Got flights scheduled in or out of the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport this July? Don't be so sure. A runway resurfacing project will force the airport to close for two weeks."The runway has not been resurfaced in 22 years, and we want to create the safest, best experience for you," said airport officials in a statement this afternoon.The project will require the airport to be closed from 8pm on July 8th until 5am on July 23rd. "We have a team that will be working 24 hours a day to resurface the runway" during that time, officials say.Airlines are not required to tell travelers about flight schedule changes -- including cancellations -- until 90 days before, so travelers who currently have flights booked during the affected time may not hear for another few weeks that their plans are changing whether they like it or not. In fact, airlines are still accepting flight reservations for flights in and out of Ithaca during the two weeks the airport will be closed.We suggest not waiting -- call your airline immediately to ask about options for rebooking flights via different airports or on different dates. Otherwise, flights may simply be canceled without warning.Original article can be found here: http://today.14850.com

The state of future projects was one of the main topics discussed at a regular meeting Thursday of the Dickinson Airport Authority.

Braun said he attended the Upper Midwest Aviation Symposium that was held Tuesday in Bismarck, where he heard once more that the North Dakota Aeronautics Commission would not have much funding to give away this year. This is due to a $4.5 million decrease from an expected $5.8 million for state airport projects as a result of a decrease in oil tax revenue in the state.“There is money trickling in,” Braun said, adding that the aeronautics commission’s conservative estimates for available money to give were being met and somewhat exceeded.But he said the general message from the commission to all airports in the state was to not plan for any major projects in the near future that do not have funding already secured.The Dickinson Theodore Roosevelt Regional Airport is in the midst of planning a years-long renovation that would eventually result in a new terminal building and a replacement of its deteriorating runway, which has developed cracks as a result of the formerly heavy traffic brought by the oil boom.However, it was projected last month and reiterated Thursday that, in light of the aeronautics commission’s situation, that project will likely have to be delayed by at least a year.“At this point, we’re not in a bad situation,” Braun said, explaining that they hadn’t found themselves stuck in the middle of any projects.He said the airport would likely wait until an environmental assessment for the future project would be completed, and then wait until more funding possibly became available in the next legislative biennium.In the meantime, the airport needs to temporarily fix its runway to hold it over until the renovation is undertaken. Braun said he was in favor of doing a crack repair using mastic.This project would cost $3 million, with $2 million secured in grant money from the Federal Aviation Administration and $1 million from entitlements of the airport.Braun said they had larger chunks of weekly time to undertake the repairs since the departure of flight traffic from Delta, which stopped service at the airport in December due to low boarding numbers.Original article can be found here: http://www.thedickinsonpress.com

"Locally, this should be a smooth transition from one carrier to another," Bradford Regional Airport Manager Alicia Dankesreiter said Wednesday in a report to the airport authority about Southern Airways' acquisition of Sun Air Express, the low-fare airline that has served Bradford for a year."There will be no change in the name for now, no change in the fares and Southern Airways will fly the Cessna 208 Caravans, the same type already in use here," Dankesreiter said."In addition," she noted, "Sun Air's President Phil LeFevre and Mark Cestari, Sun Air's vice-president/marketing, will be joining Southern Airways with these same responsibilities."Ryan Dach, Sun Ar Express' station manager at Bradford, has been promoted to northwest station manager of all PIT Connector flights, and will remain in Bradford, according to Dankesreiter.Dankesreiter provided the Sun Air Express' numbers for February, which showed that 86 percent of the 100 scheduled flights were completed. Twelve were canceled due to weather and one because of maintenance. There were 268 passengers for the month, for an average of 10.08 passengers per day, which is still above the average of ten or more enplanements per service day during the most recent fiscal year as required by the Essential Air Service (EAS) program administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation.Dankesreiter said she expects to see the number of enplanements to increase with the arrival of warmer weather.Following the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which gave airlines almost total control over what domestic markets to serve and what fares to charge, concerns were raised that communities with relatively small passenger levels would lose as airlines shifted their operations to larger and often more-profitable routes.To address these concerns, Congress established EAS, which ensures that smaller communities would retain their link to the national air transportation system with certificated air carriers, with subsidies, necessary.The current two-year EAS contract expires this fall. During the review procedure, the Department of Transportation will begin analyzing the airport's data, such as the number of enplanements, and flight completions in the third quarter and solicit requests for proposals from airlines, usually in June.A decision is expected in the fall, said Dankesreiter."We're sitting in a pretty position now," she said. "We're happy with the airline, and our numbers are the strongest in recent years. We hope the DOT looks favorably on that."In his report to the authority members, facilities manager David Thomas said the need for deicing material runs through June since some pilots request deicing of the planes due to heavy frost.With the help of a state-administered grant, the airport has purchased a ground power unit that can be used in starting commuter and charter planes.Thomas also mentioned the upgrades that the maintenance department has made to the housing on the relay boxes at the fuel farm.Thomas mentioned the first of regularly-scheduled staff meetings that he has held on the day after the authority meeting.Authority members voted unanimously to pay Baker Tilly $15,000 for the 2015 audit.Original article can be found here: http://www.bradfordera.com

During a March 9 meeting about a proposed airpark development, Leighton Township resident Dave Tubergen stands up to tell planning commissioners, 'I need you to protect my property. I need you to protect me.'

Plans for an airpark development in Leighton Township are still up in the air after about 150 people crowded into the gymnasium of Green Lake Calvary Church for the March 9 planning commission meeting.The meeting had been moved from the township hall to the larger venue in anticipation of the high attendance.Although not a public hearing, the session provided a forum for comments about a proposed 3,000-foot air strip surrounded by more than a dozen new homes at the northwest corner of 144th Street and Kalamazoo Avenue.Residents raised concerns about noise, potential safety issues, and a change in the character of the largely rural neighborhood. The plan would require rezoning the land from rural estate to planned development.Some complained that only a few people would benefit from the project, compared with the number of those who could be adversely affected by it.Similar comments had been expressed at a public hearing on Jan. 13. The proposal was tabled at that time to await a more detailed engineering plan, according to township zoning administrator Bob Jones, with Professional Code Inspectors.The airpark was the only item on the agenda at the March 9 meeting. After more than two hours of comments, commissioners voted to recommend that the township board hire an aviation expert to answer some of the remaining questions."Why wouldn't the applicant pay for this study?" asked resident Tom Hopkins. Planning commission chair Scott Chestnut replied, "That will be determined by the township board."Applicant Clark Galloway began the meeting by presenting updated topographical drawings that showed a smaller, 1,800-foot air strip that has existed for 42 years. Called the "Martin Air Field" or the "Green Lake Field," it sits on the site of a centennial farm known as the Martin Estate, which has since been divided between three owners: Bill Martin, Galloway, and Excel Development LLC, operated by Leighton Township Supervisor Steve Deer.The proposed new 3,000-foot air strip would be located to the southeast of the current strip and would replace it, Galloway said. The development, called Green Landings Estates, would also include 14 2-acre sites for single-family homes that would be at least 3,000 square feet.Under the proposal, each lot could have a 2,000-square-foot pole barn that could be used for an individual hangar, and there would also be another T-shaped rental hangar housing six to eight planes. A maximum of 25 planes would be housed onsite, and additional invited guests would be allowed to fly in for up to 10 overnight tie-downs per year.According to Galloway, planes would be limited to a "dry weight" of 4,000 pounds, which he said was smaller than some aircraft using the existing field. All pilots would be subject to usage restrictions and would not be allowed to "buzz the field," perform aerial shows, or engage in repetitive take-offs and landings. They would also not be allowed to fly over Green Lake or Round Lake. Homeowners would have to follow site condominium association bylaws.Several residents asked who would be responsible for enforcing the flight rules. Kate Scheltema, who lives on 7th Street, said she has lived at the end of the existing runway for 16 years, and that she has often seen planes circling her property for hours, disturbing the horses in her barn. "It is impossible to get tail numbers off of planes to call the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration)," she said.Ward Walters, who lives on E. Shore Drive, said he has experience in the aircraft business. Because this would be a private air strip, he said, nuisance complaints made to the FAA would be turned over to the township.Attorney Jeffrey Sluggett, who was there representing the township, said violations involving aircraft would be enforced by the township "like any other zoning issue.""I'm not sure the township should have to bear the burden on enforcing all those (rules), getting the phone calls, getting the complaints," said planning commissioner Dave Wright.Not everyone who spoke was against the plan. A commercial pilot said he felt the noise of power boats and personal watercraft on the lakes was "far more disruptive" than the engine of a small plane. Several people said they were looking forward to using the new air strip, or that they would enjoy watching the planes.Todd Meulenberg, who owns property in the adjacent Summit Pointe development, said he also likes watching planes, but added, "I don't want them over my house every day ... I would never have bought the lot had I known there would be a runway there."Dave Zylstra said he was concerned that the involvement of Deer in the project was a "conflict of interest." Attorney Sluggett replied that Deer had recused himself from voting on the issue in order to avoid such a conflict.Dave Tubergen, who lives on 144th Street near the proposed air strip, said he was worried pilots would crash into a tall communications tower on his property."They're gonna hit it," he said. Pointing to the commission members, he said, "I need you to protect my property. I need you to protect me. I need you to protect pilots of unknown skill level."Several residents said the proposed air park was not specifically allowed under the master plan. Chestnut replied that a planned development was considered to be a special situation, apart from regular zoning, and would be subject to rules and conditions set by the township.Original article can be found here: http://www.mlive.com

Jet charter and management firm Avjet Corp. has been acquired by Jet Aviation of America Inc., the companies announced Wednesday.Financial terms of the deal between Avjet, at Burbank Bob Hope Airport, and Jet Aviation, based at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey, were not disclosed.David Paddock, a senior vice president with Jet Aviation, said that Avjet’s 37-year history and fleet of 45 aircraft make it a complement to Jet Aviation’s operations.“This acquisition will also provide excellent benefits for Avjet’s customers by providing access to Jet Aviation’s global network of service facilities,” Paddock said in a prepared statement.Jet Aviation, a subsidiary of aerospace and defense firm General Dynamics Corp., in West Falls Church, Va., operates facilities in Switzerland, Hong Kong and Dubai.Avjet Chief Executive Marc Foulkrod has spun off the company’s sales and brokerage division into a separate business that he will own and operate.In January the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners recommended approval for Jet Aviation to lease a 17-acre site at 16644 Roscoe Blvd. at Van Nuys Airport for fixed-base operation providing fuel, hangar space and aircraft maintenance and repairs.Original article can be found here: http://www.sfvbj.com

Aviation Accident Final Report - National Transportation Safety Board: http://app.ntsb.gov/pdfDocket And Docket Items - National Transportation Safety Board: http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdmsThe National Transportation Safety Board did not travel to the scene of this accident.NTSB Identification: CEN16LA107 14 CFR Part 91: General AviationAccident occurred Tuesday, February 16, 2016 in Bryan, TXProbable Cause Approval Date: 03/06/2017Aircraft: CESSNA P210N, registration: N732FUInjuries: 1 Serious, 2 Minor.NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The private pilot reported that, 10 miles from the destination airport, the passengers heard a loud “clank” and smoke entered the cockpit. Shortly thereafter, the engine experienced a total loss of power and the propeller stopped turning. The pilot selected a field as a forced landing site, but the airplane impacted trees and terrain at the edge of the field. The pilot and passengers were able to extricate themselves through the right side passenger window.A postaccident engine examination revealed a catastrophic failure of the engine crankshaft between the No. 2 main bearing journal and the No. 2 connecting rod journal. The damage displayed on the No. 2 bearing was consistent with the bearing having shifted and spun. Several of the bearing supports displayed fretting near the through-bolt holes. An accurate measurement of the preaccident through-bolt torques could not be determined due to the loads subjected upon the crankcase when the crankshaft failed. Review of maintenance records indicated that the through bolts were properly torqued during the remanufacturing process nearly 1,000 flight hours before the accident and that there was no record of major work performed on the engine since that time; however, the wear signatures displayed on the bearing supports indicated that the crankcase halves were shifting in a manner consistent with improper torque of the through bolts. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:A failure of the crankshaft due to improper torque of the crankcase through bolts. On February 16, 2016, at 1130 central standard time, a Cessna P210N, N732FU, collided with trees and the terrain during a forced landing in Bryan, Texas, following a loss of engine power. The private pilot and one passenger received minor injuries. The second passenger was seriously injured. The airplane sustained substantial damage. The airplane was registered to BIA Air LLC, and was being operated by a private individual under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual flight rules (VFR) conditions prevailed for the flight which operated on a VFR flight plan. The flight originated from the Arlington Municipal Airport (GKY), Arlington, Texas, about 1030.The pilot reported that they were 10 miles from the destination airport when the passengers reported hearing a loud "clank" and smoke entered the cockpit. He contacted air traffic control and requested information regarding a closer airport at which to land. He stated the engine quickly lost power and the propeller stopped turning. He declared an emergency with air traffic control stating that he was not going to be able to make it to the closest airport. The pilot chose a field in which to land. The airplane contacted trees just before landing. The airplane descended to impact with the terrain in a wooded area at the edge of the selected field. The pilot and passengers were able to extricate themselves through the right side passenger window.A review of the engine logbook revealed the engine was factory remanufactured in September, 2005, and it was installed on the accident airplane on October 10, 2005. The last inspection was a 100-hour inspection conducted on January 6, 2016. The engine had accumulated 989 hours since being remanufactured. The records did not show any major work having been performed on the engine since it was installed.A postaccident examination of the engine was conducted on under NTSB supervision on May 3, 2016, at the Continental Motors facility in Mobile, Alabama.The engine was 310 horsepower, a six-cylinder, fuel injected, Continental Motors TSIO-520-P (7) engine, serial number 278936-R. Crankcase damage was observed just below one of the crankcase bolts above the #1 cylinder. The No. 4 stud on the No. 1 cylinder was loose and could be rotated with finger pressure. No torque putty was observed on this stud. A boroscope inspection of the pistons revealed all of the pistons were in the down position.The crankcase was cracked and a small portion of it was pushed out near the rear backbone bolts. Mechanical damage was visible on the No. 1 and No. 2 cylinder bays. The No. 1 bearing support displayed signatures consistent with minor movement of the bearing. The No. 2 main bearing support sustained damage consistent with a bearing shift and a spun bearing. The No. 1 and No. 2 main bearing supports were fretted near the through bolt holes.The No. 1 main bearings displayed normal lubrication signatures. The bearing damage was consistent with minor bearing shift. There was fretting on the bearing supports near the through bolt holes.The No. 2 main bearings were damaged consistent with a bearing shift event. Portions of the bearing were located in the oil sump. A portion of the right side of the bearing remained in the bearing saddle.The No. 3 bearings remained intact and in their bearing supports. The bearings displayed signatures of heat distress due to lack of lubrication and the copper layer was exposed.The No. 4 and No. 5 bearings were intact and displayed normal operating signatures.The crankshaft was broken into two pieces. The fracture was located at the crankshaft cheek between the No. 2 main bearing journal and the No. 2 connecting rod journal. The lock slot on the No. 2 main bearing journal was worn and fretting was noted on several of the bearing supports near the through bolt holes indicating that the crankcase halves were moving. The No. 3 main journal displayed heat discoloration and scratches consistent with particle passage. The No. 2 connecting rod journal could not be observed as the connecting rod was impinged in place on the journal. The remaining connecting rod and main journals displayed normal operating and lubrication signatures.Cylinder/Piston/Connecting Rod No. 1The cylinder was attached to the crankcase. The cylinder hold down bolt in the No. 4 position was loose and could be turned by hand. There was no torque putty on this nut. The remainder of the nuts were tight with torque putty in place. Impact damage was noted on the cylinder skirt. The valves, rocker arms, and push rods were normal.The piston remained attached to its connecting rod and the piston skirt was damaged. The rear piston ring was broken and the forward 3 piston rings were intact. The piston displayed normal combustion signatures.No anomalies were noted with the connecting rod and connecting rod bearing.Cylinder/Piston/Connecting Rod No. 2No anomalies noted with the cylinder, valves, rocker arms, and push rods.The piston remained attached to its connecting rod and the piston skirt was damaged. The rear piston ring was damaged and the forward 3 piston rings were intact. The piston displayed normal combustion signatures.The connecting rod remained attached to the journal. Some mechanical damage was visible. The connecting rod was impinged onto its journal by displaced crankshaft material at the crankshaft fracture. The bearing could not be observed due to the connecting rod impingement.Cylinder/Piston/Connecting Rod Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6No anomalies were noted with the cylinder, valves, rocker arms, push rods, pistons, or connecting rods.The camshaft was intact and no anomalies were noted. The No. 1 intake lifter was impinged and could not be removed. The remaining lifters displayed normal operating signatures.The torque on the through bolts and cylinder hold-down studs was measured during the engine disassembly. The measurements varied between 626 and 1,137 inch-pounds to tighten, and between 697 and 1,087 inch-pounds to loosen. According to the remanufacture assembly specifications, the through bolts torque should have been either 625 or 800 inch pounds depending on the position of the bolt.The left magneto did not produce any sparks when placed on a test bench. The magneto was opened and rust was noted inside the magneto. The vent hole in the pressure vent plug was blocked with debris. The right magneto produced a spark when placed on the test bench.The oil pump was intact and remained attached to the engine. The pump housing contained scoring consistent with hard particle passage. The oil filter was opened and it contained metal particles. The oil sump contained several pieces of metal consistent with piston and bearing material. The oil pickup screen was clean.No other anomalies were noted that would have resulted in a loss of engine power.All of the Continental Motors engine component serial numbers, with the exception of the starter, matched the serial numbers of the components installed on the engine when it was remanufactured in 2005. The remanufacturing records indicated the through bolts and cylinder hold-down bolds were properly torqued during the built process.NTSB Identification: CEN16LA12114 CFR Part 91: General AviationAccident occurred Friday, March 04, 2016 in Normangee, TXProbable Cause Approval Date: 12/12/2016Aircraft: ARIOSTO JAMES J ARIOSTO MUSTANG II, registration: N12JAInjuries: 1 Serious.NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.During cruise flight in the experimental, amateur-built airplane, the private pilot attempted to move the fuel selector from the left to the right fuel tank. During that process, the engine lost power, and the airplane sustained substantial damage during the subsequent forced landing. The pilot reported that he had recently modified the fuel system, and, while attempting to select the right fuel tank, he inadvertently starved the engine of fuel. The pilot reported no problems with the engine before the loss of engine power and stated that the engine lost power because he used improper procedures while attempting to change the fuel selector. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:A total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation as a result of the pilot's improper fuel selector positioning procedures during the flight.On March 4, 2016, at 1230 central standard time, an Ariosto Mustang II experimental airplane, N12JA, impacted terrain following a loss of engine power near Normangee, Texas. The private pilot sustained serious injuries, and the airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The airplane was registered to and operated by a private individual as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident, and no flight plan was filed. The local flight departed at an unknown time.According to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector who interviewed the pilot, the pilot was attempting to change the fuel draw from the left to right fuel tank, but starved the engine of fuel in the change process due to a new modification in the fuel system. The pilot reported no problems with the engine prior to the loss of engine power due to fuel starvation. The pilot stated the engine lost power due to improper procedures completed by him while switching fuel tanks. Examination of the accident site by the FAA inspector revealed the airplane impacted terrain in a left wing, nose low attitude. The airplane came to rest upright in a field that was surrounded by trees. The engine and firewall were separated from the fuselage. The left wing fuel tank was compromised and right wing fuel tank contained an unknown amount of fuel. One propeller blade remained attached to the hub and no damage was noted, and one propeller blade was separated near the hub.

BRYAN, Texas- The Brazos Valley has had three plane crashes all within 30 days. The amount of crashes in such a short period of time could cause many people to wonder how safe it is to fly these small planes.
"I don't think I've seen three plane crashes in a thirty day period, that's the first in my experience. It's not something you see everyday," says Trooper Morgan from the Dept. of Public Safety.

Jacob Shaw has a private pilots license and has been flying planes for six years."Flying a plane is not inherently dangerous but it is incredibly unforgiving of any mistakes," says Shaw. Shaw is a member of the Texas Flying Club. He says safety is something the group of around 70 pilots regularly discuss."The second you stop learning, you become a danger to yourself and everyone else," says Shaw.

A big part of safety is pre-flight planning. Knowing where all the airports are in between each flight destinations and keeping a lookout for weather. Shaw saws a plane is supposed to get inspected by a mechanic every year but before a flight a pilot should manually check their amount of fuel and check its quality."Pilots who fly once of twice a month, their experience is enough to get up in the air and enough to do it right but not necessarily enough where they can't get it wrong," says Shaw.

Shaw says pilots need to be honest and ask themselves if their experience and proficiency are adequate before they take off. The federal aviation regulation requires a minimum of forty hours flight time to get a private pilots license. The Texas Flying Club does have instructor who assist their club members.The NTSB is still investigating the cause of all three plane crashes.Story and video: http://kagstv.comNTSB Identification: CEN16FA111 14 CFR Part 91: General AviationAccident occurred Sunday, February 28, 2016 in Navasota, TXAircraft: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR20, registration: N477TCInjuries: 4 Fatal.This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.On February 28, 2016, about 0850 central standard time, a Cirrus SR-20, N477TC, collided with the terrain following a loss of control in Navasota, Texas. The airline transport rated pilot/certificated flight instructor and three passengers were fatally injured. The airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was registered to Air Akhtar Heating & Air Conditioning LLC and was operated by an individual under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed. The flight originated from the David Wayne Hook Airport (DWH), Spring, Texas, at 0817.The last air traffic control contact with the airplane was at 0821, shortly after its departure from DWH. A still photo from a security camera at the Navasota Municipal Airport (60R), an uncontrolled airport, showed the airplane heading north on the taxiway at 0847. A pilot, who was practicing touch and go landings at 60R, reported seeing the wreckage southeast of the airport around 0900. He subsequently reported the accident to local authorities. This pilot stated he did not hear or see the accident airplane in the area prior to seeing the wreckage, but that he had been in the area only long enough to have performed two touch and go landings. Runway 17 was being used for takeoffs and landings at 60R at the time of the accident.

NTSB Identification: CEN16LA12114 CFR Part 91: General AviationAccident occurred Friday, March 04, 2016 in Normangee, TXAircraft: ARIOSTO JAMES J ARIOSTO MUSTANG II, registration: N12JAInjuries: 1 Serious.This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.On March 4, 2016, at 1230 central standard time, an Ariosto Mustang II experimental airplane, N12JA, impacted terrain following a reported loss of engine power near Normangee, Texas. The private pilot sustained serious injuries, and the airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The airplane was registered to and operated by a private individual as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident, and no flight plan was filed. The local flight departed at an unknown time.According to a Federal Aviation Administration inspector, examination of the accident revealed the airplane impacted terrain in a left wing, nose low attitude. The airplane came to rest upright in a field that was surrounded by trees. The engine and firewall were separated from the fuselage. The left wing fuel tank was compromised and right wing fuel tank contained an unknown amount of fuel. One propeller blade remained attached to the hub and no damage was noted, and one propeller blade was separated near the hub.The pilot sustained serious injuries and was airlifted to the hospital from the accident site.

NTSB Identification: CEN16LA10714 CFR Part 91: General AviationAccident occurred Tuesday, February 16, 2016 in Benchley, TXAircraft: CESSNA P210N, registration: N732FUInjuries: 1 Serious, 1 Minor, 1 Uninjured.This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.On February 16, 2016, at 1130 central standard time, a Cessna P210N, N732FU, collided with trees and the terrain during a forced landing in Bryan, Texas, following a loss of engine power. The private pilot received minor injuries. One passenger received serious injuries and a second passenger was not injured. The airplane sustained substantial damage. The airplane was registered to BIA Air LLC, and was being operated by a private individual under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual flight rules (VFR) conditions prevailed for the flight which operated on a VFR flight plan. The flight originated from the Arlington Municipal Airport (GKY), Arlington, Texas, about 1100.

The Huron County Airport Authority board and its supporters continue to work toward improving the facility.At Monday’s meeting, the board members decided to address a hangar lighting issue.Harry Brady, board president, said by replacing the former old-style, $100 bulbs, with new $25 bulbs, the airport can save about $4,000 per year on its electric bills.“We’re trying to make this airport work,” Brady said.Another airport goal is transparency of records.Brady said the facility website contains all financial data, meeting notices and minutes.In other business, the board approved the purchase of 4,000 gallons of 100LL fuel and 1,000 gallons of Jet-A fuel.“The tanks are good to go,” Brady said. “They are checking the filters today (Tuesday).”Until recently, Brady had been reluctant for the airport to re-enter the Jet-A fuel business after the facility had to scrap 3,000 gallons.“We don’t want to scrap anymore fuel,” he said.Brady said a local helicopter pilot has promised to begin buying the Jet-A at the airport when it returns. Brady said the board will also contact a local cropduster about returning to the airport with the addition of Jet-A fuel.“I’m good with Jet-A if we can sell it and make a profit,” he said.Brady said the airport is now competitive with fuel prices after establishing a price adjustment program, which is the average price of local airports.“We’ve been adjusting the price on a regular basis and we’ve picked up another tenant,” he said. “We’ve also moved the building (house) to the maintenance hangar.”In February, the airport sold about 113 gallons of fuel for a total of $597.The board approved the payment of $14,538 of invoices.The airport board will next meet at 5 p.m. April 11 at the airport.Original article can be found here: http://www.norwalkreflector.com

After six years and millions of dollars, a North County airline startup says it is as little as four months away from opening.California Pacific Airlines, which first filed for approval in 2010, said its Carlsbad-based airline could begin flights in four months. The business has been beset by delays because of a rejected application and other issues with the Federal Aviation Administration.The McClellan-Palomar Airport-based business said it will start out with three ERJ-135 twin jets, which seat up to 30 people, and eventually will add more planes as it gets more established.FAA spokesman Ian Gregor declined to say much about the airline’s announcement other than the administration would continue working closely with the company on the certification process.“San Diego cannot accommodate what is necessary for North County,” said California Pacific Airlines founder Ted Vallas, 95. “We have 3 million passengers that should be flying out of McClellan-Palomar Airport . . . That is our niche, our business plan and our reason for spending the money we did.”Vallas said the airline has spent $18 million to $20 million so far getting the airline operational. He said financing will not be a problem once the airline receives its operating certificate from the FAA.

Aziz Hatefi, a consultant and adviser on the project, said initial routes will include San Jose, Oakland, Sacramento, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Cabo San Lucas.The airline has announced it was about to begin operation several times in the last three years, never to materialize.Vallas, of Rancho Santa Fe, is an airline industry veteran, starting charter service Air Resort Airlines in the 1980s. He filed his application to start California Pacific Airlines in April 2010, and even had a 72-seat regional jet — with “California Pacific” emblazoned in blue letters on its sides — parked at the airport in 2013.After years of back-and-forth talks over safety, the FAA rejected the airline’s application in August 2013 because it said it failed to meet minimum standards in areas such as safety, maintenance and inspections.The FAA expressed concern the airline did not have required data showing that Palomar’s runways could handle the 72-seat Embraer jet.Once established, Vallas said his airline will once again add the Embraer jet — he is confident it will be certified to fly at the airport — and plans to grow by 20 aircraft in three to four years. Vallas said 500 jobs will be created in the airline’s first two years of operation.He said he had to let go of 35 to 40 employees when federal budget cuts forced the FAA to delay processing the company’s application in November 2013.Former CEO John Selvaggio left the company in December 2013 to become vice president of business development and resource planning for Mesa Air Group. Since then, most of his duties have been handled by Vallas.California Pacific Airlines says it will hold a press conference in two weeks to give more information on its plans. In the meantime, it is negotiating with San Diego County, the owner of McClellan-Palomar Airport, to get an environmental approval.Original article can be found here: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com

http://registry.faa.govN201RQFAA Flight Standards District Office: FAA Cincinnati FSDO-05NTSB Identification: GAA16CA148
14 CFR Part 91: General AviationAccident occurred Wednesday, March 09, 2016 in Chesapeake, OHProbable Cause Approval Date: 05/03/2016Aircraft: REMOS AIRCRAFT GMBH G 3/600, registration: N201RQInjuries: 2 Uninjured.NTSB investigators used data provided by various entities, including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration and/or the operator and did not travel in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft accident report.According to the pilot, during final approach, his airspeed was too fast. He reported that he decided to extend the landing flare in ground effect in order to bleed off the excess airspeed. As the airplane's main landing gear touched down on the runway, the airplane bounced. The pilot reported that when the airplane settled back on the runway, the nose gear collapsed and the airplane exited the runway to the left. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall and the composite fuselage floorboard. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with the airplane prior to or during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operation.The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:The pilot's unstable approach, which resulted in excessive airspeed during the touchdown, subsequent bounced landing, collapsed nose landing gear, and a runway excursion.

FAIRFIELD, NJ — At approximately 5:31 p.m. on March 9, a 1979 Piper Aerostar had just taken off from the Essex County Airport. Upon reaching approximately 2000 feet, the pilot experienced engine problems in one of the plane’s two engines resulting in one of the engines becoming disabled.
While the plane was still in the air, police and fire units were dispatched to the airport but the plane safely landed prior to their arrival.The Fairfield Fire Department did put water on the disabled engine, as it was hot and smoking. No one was injured during the incident.The plane was being piloted by Herme Bloom of Wilmington, Delaware.There was one other passenger on board.“It is my understanding that the pilot had nearly 40 years’ experience which most certainly helped to resolve this malfunction safely. Mr. Bloom did a phenomenal job,” said Fairfield Police Chief Anthony Manna.Original article can be found here: https://www.tapinto.net

The nation’s biggest manufacturer and exporter of light aircraft engines has been savaged by the transport safety regulator, which has found that one in 10 Jabiru ­engines failed or malfunctioned during flight.A study by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau found engines built by Jabiru, based in Bundaberg in central Queensland, were more than twice as likely to suffer engine failures, malfunctions, or “spluttering” during flight compared to its competitors.However, the family-run business, which is a significant player in offshore markets, particularly the US and South Africa, has hit back at the report as “extremely biased”, and misrepresenting key details on numerous fronts.The ATSB report examined all reported cases of engine failures and malfunctions in light aircraft in Australia in the six years to 2014.In that time, 322 failures or malfunctions were reported to the ATSB, with 130 involving Jabiru engines, around half due to fractured components, in most cases fractures of “engine through bolt”.Engine through bolts are bolts which hold together the engine’s crank case, which in turn houses the engine’s pistons.Jabiru, which builds engines for individual sale as well as ­aircraft, has been aware of the problems for some time and has stopped using the parts in ­question.The ATSB compared Jabiru engine incidents against all other makes which suffered incidents in Australia in the period, but Jabiru and three competitors comprised 94 per cent of engine failures or malfunctions, mainly because they were by far the most popular engine types.

The three competitors in terms of both total incidents and incidents per 10,000 hours flown were Austrian-built Rotax engines, engines built by Textron Lycoming of Pennsylvania and those manufactured by Continental Motors, based in Alabama.Jabiru general manager Susan Woods, daughter of Jabiru founder and owner Rodd Stiff, said the ATSB report was misleading on a number of fronts.Jabiru’s “light sport aircraft” engines were compared to more expensive competitors used in heavier aircraft and the report failed to take account of the fact Jabiru’s engines were regularly used in experimental or built-at-home planes and were often more susceptible to backyard tinkering by under-experienced hands.But a key omission was that based on the ATSB’s own data, Jabiru planes were by far the safest in the market segment based on number of fatalities.“The report was extremely biased and not up to the standard we expect from the ATSB,” Ms Woods told The Australian.In the 12 years to December there were 1070 registered Jabiru aircraft and 1092 Cessna 172s in Australia and in that time Jabiru aircraft had seen 0.3 fatalities per 100 registered planes compared with 1.8 fatalities for Cessna 172s.Planes manufactured by Vans RV, a manufacturer of “kit aircraft” which are put together by owners, were the third most popular in Australia in the “light sport” category.For each 100 registered planes manufactured by Vans RV there were 2.2 fatalities over the past 12 years.A US study of light sport aircraft accidents by US publication The Aviation Consumer found Jabiru had the lowest fatality rate there (zero between 2005 and 2012) and the second-lowest overall accident rate behind the Cessna 152.A key reason for the high engine failure rate but low fatality rate was that lighter planes, such as those using Jabiru engines, were easier to manoeuvre with no power.Ms. Woods said Jabiru was also upset the ATSB had widened its study to include all single-engine aircraft of up to 800kg maximum takeoff weight when light sports aircraft were defined as planes below 600kg.That change, a deviation from an earlier study by the ATSB, meant Jabiru engines were compared to more expensive and complex engines which were built to more stringent “general aviation” specifications.“Rotax engines are water cooled and ours are aircooled,” Ms Woods said.“Aircooled engines require more diligent maintenance, are cheaper to produce but are less complicated and more inviting for people to tinker with”.Ms. Woods said she had examined each of the 130 Jabiru malfunctions and found a range of issues related to maintenance or pilot error, including fuel line blockages and cases where planes ran out of fuel.In December 2014, aviation regulator the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, based on its own investigation, placed a string of restrictions on Jabiru aircraft, including restricting them to daytime use, requirements they not fly low over populated areas and that all passengers and trainees pilots sign a statement acknowledging the “accept the risk of engine failure”.Ms. Woods said Jabiru had been attempting to have CASA lift those restrictions given it had rectified the “engine through bolt” problem, and that CASA had been impressed with Jabiru’s work but it was waiting on the delivery of the current ATSB report before taking any action.“It’s a bit rough for us at the moment,” Ms Wood said.Original article can be found here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au
Aviation safety issues and actions
Through-bolt failures in Jabiru enginesIssue number:AR-2013-107-SI-01Who it affects:Owners and operators of aircraft powered by Jabiru enginesIssue owner:Jabiru Aircraft Pty LtdOperation affected:Aviation: General aviationBackground:Investigation Report AR-2013-107Date:09 March 2016Safety issue descriptionThicker 7/16 inch diameter through-bolts, fitted to newer Jabiru engines and some retro-fitted engines, have had limited service to date to confirm early indications that they reduce this risk. Retro-fitting engines with thicker through-bolts has only been recommended for aircraft involved in flight training by JSB031 issue 3. Most light aircraft in service with Jabiru engines continue to use 3/8 inch diameter engine through-bolts which, even after upgrades in accordance with Jabiru service bulletins JSB031 issues 1 and 2, remain at an elevated risk of fracturing within the service life of the bolt, leading to an engine failure or malfunction in flight.Response to safety issue by Jabiru Aircraft AustraliaJabiru Australia has recently completed an engineering study (Through bolt strain gauge test, Jabiru engineering report AVDALSR109-1, 19 November 2015) that has designed and tested a modified 3/8 inch diameter through-bolt which is believed will address the safety issue.The report states:….. [the earlier February 2015 Jabiru engineering report AVDALSR105] established that the natural frequency tendencies of the 3/8” through bolt were such that resonance with the engine was likely to occur and this was the probable sources of abnormal (and previously unanticipated) cyclic loads which would cause the bolts to fail.This report details further work conducted to confirm this hypothesis using an instrumented through bolt installed in a running Jabiru engine. In the course of testing conducted, the nature of loading in the through bolt has been established, vibrational resonance was detected and another aspect of the failure mechanism was uncovered; the previously unanticipated thermal load cycling.The final tests conducted were on a revised design to the 3/8” through bolt which incorporated aspects to alleviate the effects of thermal expansion and damp resonant vibrations that were found on the standard through bolt. The revised 3/8” through-bolt was:designed featuring a more elastic (i.e. less stiff) spring rate and rubber O-rings in the middle to damp resonate transverse vibrations.Calculations showed significant reduction in preload tension resulting from a given temperature increase for the new design 3/8” through bolt compared to the standard design.Engine test runs were also conducted. The resonant vibration mode identified for the standard 3/8” through bolt had visibly disappeared with the addition of rubber O-rings. This suggests that the addition of rubber O-rings significantly damps the otherwise damaging resonant vibrations.ATSB comment in responseThe ATSB recognises that Jabiru Aircraft have conducted a number of in-depth analyses of the mechanism of the through-bolt failures. Additionally, the ATSB acknowledges that Jabiru consider that both the implementation of the 7/16 inch through-bolt, and the development of a revised design 3/8 inch though-bolt, have the potential to address this safety issue across the fleet of all Jabiru engines.As noted in the internal Jabiru engineering report AVDALSR105-2, most Jabiru-powered aircraft remain at risk of a through-bolt failure. This risk exists because most Jabiru engines in use are still using older configurations of through-bolts. At the time of release of this report, about 20 per cent of engines were manufactured with the new 7/16 inch through-bolt configuration. Some older engines have been retro-fitted to accommodate the thicker through-bolts. However, the recommendation in service bulletin JSB031-3 to upgrade through-bolts to the newest available configuration of through-bolts only pertained to aircraft involved in flight training. As the use of the new 7/16 inch configuration through-bolts is relatively recent, on-going monitoring of the reliability of these through-bolts across the fleet is required.Up to 80 per cent of the Jabiru engines in service, which have the older 3/8 inch configuration through-bolts, are still at risk. Although Jabiru have designed and tested a revised 3/8 inch through-bolt which incorporates aspects to alleviate the effects of thermal expansion and damp resonant vibrations, it can only address the safety issue once these new bolts are made available to Jabiru engine owners and fitted to relevant aircraft.RecommendationAction organization:Jabiru Aircraft AustraliaAction number:AR-2013-107-SR-055Date:09 March 2016Action status:ReleasedThe Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that Jabiru Aircraft Australia takes further safety action to ensure that all owners of Jabiru engines that have not been manufactured with new configuration 7/16 inch diameter through-bolts, or modified in accordance with Jabiru Service Bulletin JSB031-3 have access to, and are encouraged to upgrade to:the 7/16 inch diameter through-bolt configuration, orany other alternative produced to replace the existing 3/8 inch diameter through-bolt configuration (including newly developed through-bolts incorporating aspects to alleviate the effects of thermal expansion and damp resonant vibrations).RecommendationAction organization:Civil Aviation Safety AuthorityAction number:AR-2013-107-SR-056Date:09 March 2016Action status:ReleasedThe Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority continue to monitor the through-bolt failure rate of Jabiru engines to satisfy themselves of the reliability of the:7/16 inch diameter bolts, andany other alternative produced to replace the existing 3/8 inch diameter through-bolt configuration (including newly developed through-bolts incorporating aspects to alleviate the effects of thermal expansion and damp resonant vibrations)to determine if these modifications have sufficiently reduced the risk of an engine failure or malfunction in Jabiru-powered aircraft. Aviation safety issues and actions: https://www.atsb.gov.au